Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

I think there should be a rule. People who fight for privacy shouldn't also be allowed to fight for tranparency.

I'm afraid I disagree with all three of you, David. Putting aside the issue of Facebook changing policy for now, the actual implementation of the opt-in / opt-out mechanism is possibly the best I've seen of any on- or off-line company. Unlike credit card companies that hide the actual changes among 4 pages of 8-point font and an impossible opt-out mechanism (calling customer service!), Facebook shows you EXACTLY what the public can see, and it also offers very clear, simple, and granular mechanisms to adjust what information is exposed. In fact, I would argue that the UI design for the opt-out process is exemplary and should become the standard against which other such policies are compared.

As a regular Facebook user (as in, several times a day), it was impossible for me to ignore this opt-out mechanism. So that takes me back to the policy change: I think the policy change has a very different impact on the regular user vs. the irregular or former user. The setting should NOT be "open" UNLESS the user has an "active" account (probably, logged in within the last month). Otherwise, someone who signed up for FB in 2005 and hasn't used it since would vulnerable to never having the real chance to opt-out of having private information exposed.

Finally, I think my disagreement with you on this turns on my disagreement that privacy should be hard to give up. I continue to believe that the process should be INTENTIONAL, not DIFFICULT. Many of us (those who want to establish careers, relationships, etc.) WANT to be found and we will route around any difficult obstacles that law or code put in our way. However, we want to be THOUGHTFUL and INTENTIONAL about how and when we expose our data, and it's in that respect that I find FB's design exemplary. FB is a good example of making it both EASY and INTENTIONAL to expose data, the one quadrant you and I disagree upon.

Gene, I think it should be intentional AND difficult. So, yes, we disagree. (There are exceptions and edge cases where we'll agree, of course.) Intentional and easy leads to a change in the norms I'd rather not see -- but, no one's put me in charge, so I'm only expressing my preference here -- where vendors make it easy and enticing to give up your privacy "to serve you better" or "for your security" (i.e., to sell you stuff, to make the vendor databases more valuable, or to lessen the vendor's risk).

I believe that your view will prevail, though, Gene.

I'm curious to what extent our disagreement is generational, not because of some diffuse "digital native" change of attitude, but because, as I said in my earlier comment, younger people have a stronger interest in getting their names and identities out there, whereas older folks with more established lives might value privacy more. Call it the bioevolutionary motive for networking: reproductive strategy for the young prioritizes finding a mate (generally leans towards publicity); for the older, protecting offspring (generally leans towards privacy).

This is totally conjecture, btw!

It's very likely generational, sonny boy.

:)

Having read and thought more, I find myself agreeing more with Gene and less with myself. I also like Larry Borsato's post. I agree with Gene that FB has done a good job of walking users through the process, so I'm now in the "Get over it" phase of grieving over privacy.

I'd still rather that FB kept even my participation in FB private unless I say so, and the broadcasting of this info to search engines makes FB feel less like a private garden where I can hang out with my friends. But, I think I over-reacted. I think Gene is again right when he attributes this at least in part to a generational difference.

Me too, except I'm catching a plane and barely have time to write about it. Arg.